x
Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#51 - rafikithenig (11/16/2012) [-]
I've been denied foodstamps three times now. What government is this and how can i join?
User avatar #50 - edgecution (11/16/2012) [-]
People on foodstamps and welfare should be drug tested.
User avatar #88 to #50 - cancerousiguana (11/16/2012) [-]
Florida tried this. It costs more money than it saves, because there's actually a really low percentage of recipients using drugs, and drug testing is EXTREMELY expensive
User avatar #74 to #50 - noblexfenrir (11/16/2012) [-]
They tried this lol, but you know the funny part? They told them when and where the drug test was going to be conducted. Surprisingly only around 2% tested positive, NOWAI!
#97 to #74 - intrepidy (11/16/2012) [-]
Well for weed, which is probably what they were mostly testing for, it stays in your system for a month. Harder drugs would lead physical evidence i suspect.
#72 to #50 - anonomysmonkey (11/16/2012) [-]
Let's just drug test everybody. That way we can insure our drug policies are being enforced well enough. Nobody should have to endure the evil temptation of narcotics.
Let's just drug test everybody. That way we can insure our drug policies are being enforced well enough. Nobody should have to endure the evil temptation of narcotics.
#64 to #50 - Absolute Madman (11/16/2012) [-]
lets do this but with every member of the government
User avatar #43 - jinjo (11/15/2012) [-]
I think there should be requirements for welfare,

Honestly, I'm it right now, because I don't live with my parents and a part time job isn't enough to keep me afloat and go to school at the same time. So I'm on 'Student assistance' in high school. I think my situation is reasonable, because I'm still going to school. Now if I was just blook sucking off the government and jerking off, I don't think I would be 'qualified' for welfare.
User avatar #90 to #43 - cullenatorguy (11/16/2012) [-]
There are requirements for welfare...
User avatar #132 to #90 - jinjo (11/16/2012) [-]
Yea, but tighten them.

I know some people who definitely aren't meeting the requirements.. I'm sure a lot of people know people like that.
#39 - underaserpentsun (11/15/2012) [-]
everybody who agrees with this content should feel deeply ashamed of themselves. do you really think that it is better whn people starve of become criminals just so they won't become 'dependant' on welfare?

"The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members."
#81 to #39 - mayedh (11/16/2012) [-]
You have my respect. So many people nowadays are callous to the under class. In their minds their short comings are due only to laziness, drugs, or their own mismanagement of funds. Even if that were true we should not mistreat or abandon our own citizens. Much of the problem is our broken system. Because of it we see a new class emerging called the working poor. There should be no way that anyone in this country(USA) can work a full time job and be considered poor or not be able to afford the necessities. Anyway I'm just glad to see that there is someone who still cares.
#96 to #81 - underaserpentsun (11/16/2012) [-]
please understand my position: even if someone is a lazy, mismanaged pothead, i still find it immoral to just let him die. it's not like we can't afford to help those people, we just choose not to. we pass judgement on them from our high horse. the crime is laziness and the punishment is death.
User avatar #105 to #96 - mayedh (11/16/2012) [-]
I agree for the most part.
User avatar #45 to #39 - noblexfenrir (11/15/2012) [-]
is how it betters its weakest members*

You don't let them starve but you place certain processes in the program so it's not beneficial or atleast completely to be on it. Take if someone doesn't have a job, for each month if they are on food stamps and welfare and any other government supplemental program, they have to bring in proof of job searching and have to have recorded atleast 40 hours of community service (this is ofcourse when they don't have a job).
#48 to #45 - underaserpentsun (11/16/2012) [-]
and if they can't or won't do it? do you let them starve? do you let their children starve? is ten dollars a day really that much of an effort to save even the laziest person's life in a nation that spends over 1 000 000 000 000 dollars each year on bombing brown people overseas?
i do agree that there has to be incentive to work. but this incentive CANNOT be the threat of starvation or homelessness.
User avatar #89 to #48 - Ruspanic (11/16/2012) [-]
People are not entitled to money, goods, or services at the expense of others. Taxpayers should not be expected to pay the bills of someone who is perfectly capable of getting a job and sustaining himself. That's not to say there should be no safety net, but such welfare programs must have strings attached to prevent dependency.

If you starve because you are too lazy to earn your own living or because you spend all your money on blackjack and hookers, the government does not have a duty to save you from yourself. There are genuinely needy and disadvantaged people out there who actually try take responsibility for their lives and deserve that aid more than you do.
#100 to #89 - underaserpentsun (11/16/2012) [-]
there is enough money to go around. it's just that the people who have the most of it are sitting on it gloating. you say a lazy person is not entitled to money and goods. does this also extend to goods that will keep him alive? is being alive a human right and if so, why is the government not responsible for protecting it along with your other rights?
User avatar #112 to #100 - Ruspanic (11/16/2012) [-]
"There is enough money to go around. it's just that the people who have the most of it are sitting on it gloating."
That money is not yours to spend, and what people choose to do with their own money is their business. Just because you would benefit from my possessions doesn't mean you're entitled to them, or that I'm obligated to give them to you. Being stingy with my money might make me an asshole, but it does not violate your rights.

"you say a lazy person is not entitled to money and goods. does this also extend to goods that will keep him alive?"
Yes, if we're talking about rights (morality is a different matter).

"is being alive a human right and if so, why is the government not responsible for protecting it along with your other rights?"

The right to life means that others cannot take your life away (i.e. by killing you). It does not mean you're entitled to others keeping you alive indefinitely at their expense. You wouldn't call natural death a violation of rights, would you?
The government has a responsibility to protect your right to life by preventing and prosecuting murder, and by defending the country against attacks.
Providing aid to the poor is a matter of general welfare, not rights.
#114 to #112 - underaserpentsun (11/16/2012) [-]
i do not see the difference between killing a person and letting him/her starve. as for legal vs. moral obligations. which ones do you find more binding? if there was a law that told you to hand jews over to the SS, would you oblige?

the root of the problem is that people are so fixated on money, they do not realize that the whole purpose of a modern state is to help each other so that we can achieve more than we would on our own. when you say that your money is not mine to spend, you are right to a certain degree. but when the question is whether or not the population of a state should be allowed to agree on donating a small part of their income do keep their fellow citizens' human dignity, 'i' (being the government) may very well have a word to say on where 'your' money goes.
User avatar #118 to #114 - Ruspanic (11/16/2012) [-]
"i do not see the difference between killing a person and letting him/her starve."
Murder is the ending of a life through direct and intentional action, whereas had you not acted the person would still be alive.
In the second case, the person would die unless you acted.
What I am saying is that no one is naturally entitled to the service or property of anyone else, regardless of how much they need it.

Think about property rights: they mean you have a right to own and use your own property as you wish without interference from others, but not that you are entitled to be given "stuff". Same thing with life: you have a right to be alive without others actively killing you, but you're not entitled naturally to be kept alive at others' expense.

"as for legal vs. moral obligations. which ones do you find more binding? if there was a law that told you to hand jews over to the SS, would you oblige?"
Of course not. I did not refer to legal obligations. Anything can be written into law, and the law is as capable of violating rights as any individual.
Not only would your example be immoral, it would also violate the rights of the Jews in question.

"the root of the problem is that people are so fixated on money, they do not realize that the whole purpose of a modern state is to help each other so that we can achieve more than we would on our own. "
That's rather general. The primary purpose of a state is to protect individual rights, allowing people to coexist and be more productive, which benefits everyone. The American Constitution specifically lists five purposes for our government's existence:
-mediate disputes (establish justice)
-enforce criminal justice (ensure domestic tranquility)
-defend the country from attacks (provide for the common defense)
-promote the general welfare
-protect individual rights (secure the blessings of liberty)

These purposes constantly and inevitably conflict with each other and must be balanced. (continued)
User avatar #120 to #118 - Ruspanic (11/16/2012) [-]
"When you say that your money is not mine to spend, you are right to a certain degree. but when the question is whether or not the population of a state should be allowed to agree on donating a small part of their income do keep their fellow citizens' human dignity, 'i' (being the government) may very well have a word to say on where 'your' money goes."
Taxation is a necessary evil. It is necessary because the government could not fulfill its duties without taxes, but it is an evil because it restricts individual property rights and economic freedoms.
'You' as the government must keep this in mind and recognize the importance of preserving people's rights to keep what they own. Government - and by extension taxpayer money - cannot be used as a means of solving every problem, not just because that makes government extremely powerful, but also because it's not usually ethical to take money from people without their explicit consent, regardless of how noble your cause is.

I agree with your practical conclusion that some tax money should go toward helping the genuinely disadvantaged maintain a decent and sustainable standard of living. But that doesn't mean the poor have a right to our money. It falls under "promote the general welfare" and clashes with "secure the blessings of liberty".
#121 to #120 - underaserpentsun (11/16/2012) [-]
again, i doubt that you can morally justify protecting your property over a fellow human life, no matter what the law says, especially seeing as how minuscule the amounts in question are compared to the various luxury items and frankly heaps of money we have at our disposal.
i do understand your position but i strongly believe that society is long overdue on extending its moral standards beyond what was common 2000 years ago.
User avatar #128 to #121 - Ruspanic (11/16/2012) [-]
Sorry, I don't have any more time to debate. But it was fun! Thanks for the mental exercise.
User avatar #126 to #121 - Ruspanic (11/16/2012) [-]
I'm not talking about morality or law!
In my concept of morality, I think it would be immoral to let someone drown if you could easily save him. But that doesn't mean the drowning person has a right or entitlement to you saving him, or that you should be required by law to jump in and save him. I think a good person would give up their time and the dryness of their clothes to save a life, but to say the would-be-victim has a right to be rescued binds the rescuer to involuntary servitude, i.e. slavery.

Morality shouldn't be enforced by law. People should have the legal right to be stupid, immoral dickwads, as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

It is wrong to think that "we" have heaps of money at our disposal, because that money is not yours to spend, and you do not have the right to take it. Some individuals have heaps of money, and if they use that money for charitable purposes I admire them for that. But if they're being stingy I can't just steal their money and donate it for them. That would be immoral on my part.

Taxes must be tolerated insofar as they are necessary, but the government can't morally spend other people's money.
#129 to #126 - underaserpentsun (11/16/2012) [-]
at this point we will disagree then. in the german language, there is the word 'Mundraub'. it means 'petty larceny of food' and is not illegal if you do not have the means to buy food.
to say it in your language: the right to protect yourself and your family from starvation trumps other people's property rights and thereby may implicitly grant you the right to someone else's possession to the necessary degree.
#119 to #118 - underaserpentsun (11/16/2012) [-]
how is 'not being kept alive' promoting general welfare? and where do you draw the line between actively killing someone and 'passively' watching them die? and honestly, what does it matter anyway? you decide whether a person lives or dies, either by your action or your inaction.

you already pay taxes for things that may or may not help you or your loved ones. that's what you subscribe to as a citizen, so why not invest a little more, just in case you lose your job and end up on welfare yourself?
User avatar #122 to #119 - Ruspanic (11/16/2012) [-]
I was a bit slow with the rest of my post, sorry. I addressed some of this there.

"how is 'not being kept alive' promoting general welfare?"
First of all, general welfare is not the same as rights (as I mentioned). They're different things. Secondly, none of those purposes are absolute and it would be absurd to extend them ad infinitum. Everyone is going to die. It would be absurd to prevent all death forever.

"where do you draw the line between actively killing someone and 'passively' watching them die?"
I've told you. You look at the consequences of doing nothing. What would have happened had you not been around? Not saving someone's life is not murder.

"you already pay taxes for things that may or may not help you or your loved ones. that's what you subscribe to as a citizen"
Well... that's the Social Contract. But you didn't make any active decision to "subscribe" to that, unless you're an immigrant by choice. It's something that is imposed on you from birth. "Why not invest a little more" is not a good argument for the obvious reason that it's a slippery slope. It's bad enough we have to be forced to pay taxes out of necessity. A decision to force everyone to give up more of their money should not be taken lightly. "Why not" isn't a reason.

As I said, though I do support social programs to help the poor, and I think it's justified to an extent to sacrifice some individual liberty for other general gains (security, welfare, etc). But I think the government should try to limit its spending and taxation (and borrowing, because that has to be paid back eventually with interest), and that taxpayers should not have to pay for some lazy bum's gambling addiction.
#125 to #122 - underaserpentsun (11/16/2012) [-]
first off, we're not talking dying, we're talking food stamps and starving. you cannot protect people from eventually dying but preventing starvation is a trivial matter. also, how do you gamble with food stamps? if the welfare system is set up correctly and efficiently, it will prevent abuse to a large degree. i know this is possible because i live in a country where it is reality.
i also did not mean to imply a slippery slope but can you really argue that the 'sweet spot' between maximum liberty and maximum solidarity is having people living on the street and dying from lack of health insurance or food? come on, it's 2012, not 1800...
User avatar #130 to #125 - Ruspanic (11/16/2012) [-]
Fine, one more then.

"also, how do you gamble with food stamps?"
Hypothetical example. I meant that taxpayer money shouldn't be given to people who are able to adequately sustain themselves without it.

"if the welfare system is set up correctly and efficiently"
Yes, exactly! "Correctly" means there have to be strings attached. Simply being poor should not be enough to qualify you for aid at others' expense, if your poverty is entirely your own fault.

I repeat again that I do not oppose social welfare spending in general, I just think it should be done with careful consideration about the rights of the taxpayer. Spending other people's money is not a solution to every problem, and we should focus on improving social mobility rather than merely alleviating poverty.

Okay, NOW I'm out.
#131 to #130 - underaserpentsun (11/16/2012) [-]
i don't expect you to answer but consider this: who decides whether you are able to sustain yourself or not? what if the 'correct' and cheaper solution is to just grant people a minimum flatrate of food and shelter rather than breeding more bureaucracy?
and even if your answer is 'no, if you want welfare, you are dancing to my tune', you still have not justified your opinion that laziness is punishable by death.
User avatar #137 to #131 - Ruspanic (11/17/2012) [-]
"who decides whether you are able to sustain yourself or not? what if the 'correct' and cheaper solution is to just grant people a minimum flatrate of food and shelter rather than breeding more bureaucracy? "
Both good points. However, it's not impossible to at least set some standards - for instance require people (if they're able-bodied and in a certain age-range) to work or at least be seeking work in order to receive certain welfare subsidies.
The US already has some such restrictions on welfare spending, including restrictions on how much federal money states can receive for welfare spending to prevent the problem of dependency.

I do not opine that laziness is punishable by death. Not receiving certain tax-funded welfare benefits is not a punishment, because you weren't naturally entitled to them in the first place. If you hurt yourself through your own poor decisions, and especially if you are fully able but unwilling to earn your own living, you should not expect others to sustain you at their expense. The government is not a parent or a nanny. It should not hold everyone's hand throughout their lives and constantly shield them from the consequences of their own actions. The government should help those who try to help themselves, or those who are incapable of sustaining themselves on their own.
User avatar #49 to #48 - noblexfenrir (11/16/2012) [-]
If they can't because of a complication that causes them unable (Although I would have to say 99% of cases can look for a job and do community service) then we will accomadate, if they WON'T do it then well, not my problem. Their children can easily be taken away from them if they choose such an option.

Yes, 10 dollars to even one person who doesn't contribute to his society or give any reason for them to deserve that money is too much. 1 dollar would be too much.

Noone is being threatened, THEY are making the choice. If they can't find a job and must take government supplemental cash, then asking them to respond to that with some sort of return (in my scenario, community service) is really that bad? If they choose to not do it then that is hardly my problem, they are choosing to starve. (and I have already said if someone can't then we will accommodate however I am talking in a general sense in which case people can do this)

#57 to #49 - sdmitch (11/16/2012) [-]
I agree except that 40 hours of community service plus some hours of looking for work is more than 40 hours required of the person. This is esp. important since it's already a long and tedious wait to get food stamps.
User avatar #69 to #57 - noblexfenrir (11/16/2012) [-]
Oh it was just a suggestion, main point I was getting across was to just make a requirement is to be productive.
#55 to #49 - underaserpentsun (11/16/2012) [-]
people like you make me sad.
User avatar #70 to #55 - noblexfenrir (11/16/2012) [-]
It's a shame you get sad about progress.
User avatar #102 to #70 - mayedh (11/16/2012) [-]
Your form of thinking is cold and very dangerous. It is easy to cast the blame on those that fail or abandon those that fall short when fortune smiles on you. I'm not saying that your life is easy, or anything was handed to you or anything like that, but judging is easy on the outside looking in. Show compassion to your fellow man. Even to those that don't deserve it. I'm not saying let people get over on you, but show compassion.
User avatar #135 to #102 - noblexfenrir (11/17/2012) [-]
Isn't offering someone food and money for doing community service when they are out of a job compassion? If they choose not to do it (not can't, won't) then it is the equivalent of slapping my hand away if I offered them bread.
#78 to #70 - underaserpentsun (11/16/2012) [-]
...really? that's your argument?

i am not sad about progress. i am sad about the modern world where it is socially acceptable to let even your own countrymen starve if only the circumstances are right. we live in a time where we could easily feed the whole world but we choose not to, because we have convinced ourselves that the starving people don't 'deserve' to live.
and i'm not pulling a jesus on you here. i don't need religion to justify my position, just common human decency.
User avatar #136 to #78 - noblexfenrir (11/17/2012) [-]
It isn't socially acceptable to let them starve, but it shouldn't be acceptable to just hand out food while that person contributes nothing to society.

We have not convinced ourselves that starving people don't deserve to live, quite the contrary, we need people so helping someone is beneficial to the entire populace, it's just a question if that person helps you as well.
User avatar #37 - monkee (11/15/2012) [-]
Maybe it's because I grew up in a household run by benefits, but I do see them as a beneficial part of society. My little brother is severely disabled, and my mother has been a single mother since I was 9. She cares for him, and claims off the government to fund his additional support needs. We never received a penny from our deadbeat dad. Yet she still feels this shame when she calls herself a stay-at-home carer, because people judge her. She has a mental health nursing degree but can't use it because of her commitment to my younger brother. I had to be selfish for my own future and I'm at university just now, but not a day goes by where I don't feel guilty for leaving her. Did we deserve to be cut off because we weren't contributing anything then?
User avatar #44 to #37 - blacksmithgu (11/15/2012) [-]
I believe the point here is not to hurt those who actually need the support, but rather the maybe 3-4% (?) of Americans who live SOLELY on Welfare and have done so for a long period of time without giving anything back - basically sapping tax money.

The people who need it should get it, and those who are just too lazy to work should not.
User avatar #41 to #37 - illegalartist (11/15/2012) [-]
I have a similar story. In fact, my mom is also an RN for mental health...
#36 - Absolute Madman (11/15/2012) [-]
Good guy america: makes sure everyone in the country is fed
Scumbag america: makes working people pay for lazy people
User avatar #60 to #36 - gammajk (11/16/2012) [-]
Poor people =/= lazy people.
#31 - gangstafish (11/15/2012) [-]
**gangstafish rolled a random image posted in comment #1556210 at Item Discussion **
User avatar #29 - Souffriau (11/15/2012) [-]
They do this because they'd have incontrollable criminality otherwise.
#35 to #28 - mikepetru (11/15/2012) [-]
but Jesus fed people through his miracles of his own free will and at no one else's expense. He didn't steal food and wealth from one person to give to another.
User avatar #38 to #35 - wersand (11/15/2012) [-]
He took the bread and fish from the little boy, although you're right it wasn't against his will, the little boy still sacrificed.
Then you get to the following about taxes, "give onto Ceasar what is Ceasar's." God's name may be on the dollar, but it's still governmental wealth. So true Christian's should willingly give it away, no matter how much the government is asking for.
#27 - lovetolmao (11/15/2012) [-]
*******		 THIIS.
******* THIIS.
+63
#20 - imanorphan **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #19 - gorginhanson (11/15/2012) [-]
The only difference is that people don't know how to live off the land.
User avatar #14 - lamarsmithgot (11/15/2012) [-]
bears don't go to war overseas and come back with crippling medical problems.
User avatar #25 to #14 - sxespanky (11/15/2012) [-]
bears also dont live off of welfare and buy shining rimms for their brand new SUV
User avatar #34 to #25 - helenwheels (11/15/2012) [-]
Name me one person on welfare you know who has a brand new SUV.
Just name me one.
User avatar #138 to #34 - sxespanky (11/17/2012) [-]
someone my mom works with. government gave them a house - GAVE THEM ,food stamps. and they sell drugs on the side and got a brand new suv with spinners.
User avatar #52 to #34 - dsand (11/16/2012) [-]
Tyrone.
#17 to #14 - daddycool (11/15/2012) [-]
They might.

Has anyone ever tried yelling at them a lot, forcing them to do push ups, and calling them various euphemisms for homosexual?
#13 - rawrbowwow (11/15/2012) [-]
Oh the irony
#21 to #13 - cactaur (11/15/2012) [-]
heh- iron e
#12 - Absolute Madman (11/15/2012) [-]
Even more ironic. That bear is black.
#11 - Absolute Madman (11/15/2012) [-]
The National Park Service is actually part of the Dept. of the Interior. Now you Know.
#10 - justacritic (11/15/2012) [-]
But I receive food stamps and have a job. I just can't afford all of my bills st the end of the month. (O_o)
#16 to #10 - Absolute Madman (11/15/2012) [-]
Do you have cable/satellite TV?
Are you using your computer to access the internet at your house?
lrn2priorities
#42 to #16 - underaserpentsun (11/15/2012) [-]
oh so now we are denying first world citizens the right to information, so that they don't even have a chance to educate themselves or form political opinions? brilliant....

meanwhile, in europe, several countries have recognized internet acces as a human right and the government provides free access wherever it is needed.
#134 to #42 - daddycool (11/16/2012) [-]
People in America have no "right to information." This is specifically because of what a right is and is not in America.

In America, a right is something you're born with. The right to speak freely, the right to own property, the right to assemble. These are things you can do with what you're given upon birth. However, you do not have a right to a commodity(information, food, healthcare, for example). That would require an imposition upon someone else as they would have to furnish it for you. A "natural born right" does not incur a cost upon anyone else, while a right to a commodity would.

Here's a longer(and better) explanation by Bill Whittle(though it's on the subject of healthcare, as opposed to information). www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S9dwP-fV3o&feature=plcp
#18 to #16 - daddycool (11/15/2012) [-]
Why prioritize when you can just get free money from the government?
User avatar #15 to #10 - justanotherzombie (11/15/2012) [-]
I am Canadian, What is a food stamp exactly?
User avatar #85 to #15 - cancerousiguana (11/16/2012) [-]
It's basically a special card loaded with money that they give you, and it can only be spent on food (you have to go to certain stores to use it, not everywhere takes it)
User avatar #26 to #15 - sxespanky (11/15/2012) [-]
when poor folk make babies, dont get jobs, but get an ass load of money from the government so they never have to work ever again.
User avatar #9 - sirherpderp (11/15/2012) [-]
except animals don't feel humiliated because they accept free food
User avatar #7 - tikledpikle (11/15/2012) [-]
some people, like myself, do need it. i don't make enough to even pay my bills, let alone food. but i'm one of very few who are actually working for what we get.
User avatar #6 - helenwheels (11/15/2012) [-]
That's only one reason.
The main reason is because they don't want animals like bears to get used to humans because bears can kill humans on accident.
 Friends (0)